Negara-negara Tentara Salib: Perbedaan antara revisi

As frequent beneficiaries of pious donations across Europe and the Levant, the Hospitallers, Templars, and to a lesser extent the Teutonic Knights accumulated considerable wealth. They administered their scattered estates through an extensive network of branch houses, each required to transfer a part—generally one-third—of its revenues to the Jerusalemite headquarters. As the regular transfer of goods and money required the development of complex logistical and financial systems, the three orders operated as early forms of supranational trading houses and credit institutions. Their networks facilitated international money transfers, because funds deposited in a branch could be paid out in another, and loans granted in one country could be repaid in another.{{sfn|Jaspert|2006|pp=151–153, 160–161}} The Hospitallers never abandoned charitable work. In Jerusalem, their hospital served hundreds of patients of all religions and genders. Pilgrims, pregnant women, abandoned children, and impoverished people could also enlist their aid.{{sfn|Tyerman|2019|p=155}} However, waging war against infidels remained the military orders' prime obligation. As an early example of a [[standing army]], they had a pivotal role in the crusader states' defence. The knight-brothers and their armed servants were professional soldiers under monastic vows. They wore a habit, always with a cross on it, and showing its wearer's rank.{{sfn|Jaspert|2006|pp=155–156, 158–160}} As lay rulers and aristocrats seldom had the funds to cover all costs of border defence, they eagerly ceded their border forts to the military orders. The earliest examples include [[Bayt Jibrin|Beth Gibelin]] in Jerusalem, and Krak des Chevaliers in Tripoli, both seized by the Hospitallers.{{sfn|Jotischky|2004|pp=87–89}}

 

 

The Frankish knights fought in [[close order formation]] and applied tactics to enhance the impact of a cavalry charge. Examples include surprise attacks at dawn and chasing herds of cattle towards an enemy camp. During a Frankish cavalry charge, the Muslim troops attempted to avoid a direct clash until the knights were separated from the infantry and their horses became exhausted. Frankish foot soldiers could create a '[[Testudo formation|shield-roof]]' against the rain of Turkish arrows. [[Feigned retreat]] was a tactic used by both Muslim and Frankish troops, although Christian chroniclers considered it shameful. In a siege situation, the Franks avoided direct assaults. Instead, they imposed a blockade on the besieged town and starved the defenders into submission. By contrast, Muslim commanders preferred direct attacks as they could easily muster new troops to replace those who had perished.{{sfn|Morton|2020|pp=220–222, 229–234}} Both sides employed similar [[siege engines]], including wooden [[siege towers]], [[battering rams]], [[mangonels]], and from the 1150s large [[trebuchets]].{{sfn|Tyerman|2019|p=373}} The extensive use of [[carrier pigeons]] and signal fires was an important element of Muslim warfare. As Muslim commanders were informed of the Franks' movements in time, they could intercept Frankish invaders unexpectedly.{{sfn|Morton|2020|p=251}} In comparison with contemporaneous Europe, battles were not uncommon in Outremer. The Franks fought battles mainly in defensive situations. They adopted delaying tactics only when they obviously had no chance to defeat a large invading force, like during Saladin's invasion of Antioch in 1187 and Mamluk attacks against Outremer in the 1260s. While on the offensive, the Franks typically risked pitched battles if they could gain substantial territory and a local faction supported their campaign.{{sfn|Morton|2020|pp=192–197}} -->